marvelfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Registration Acts
Copied from wikipedia:Registration acts (comics) -- WhyBother 06:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Opinion What is your personal opinion on superhuman/mutant registration/regulations? Personally, I am opposed to it. Not only does it violate the Constitution, it leads to corruption. Look at what happened with Dark Reign. Norman Osborn put the ENTIRE super-hero community at risk. I dunno. Just wanted your opinionsMaxGoji 2.0 (talk) 21:14, December 5, 2016 (UTC)MaxGoji 2.0 :Registration Acts such as the SHRA aren't necessarily anticonstitutional, specially considering the SHRA was never really fleshed out and you can only describe it in broad terms. One comic says heroes are forced to work for S.H.I.E.L.D., other says heroes can accept to work for S.H.I.E.L.D.. One comic says heroes have to reveal their secret identities to S.H.I.E.L.D., another says only to Tony Stark. :Additionally, it's really hard to try to apply the Constitution to the SHRA to examine its legitimacy when you take into account the factor of superhumans. You could argue that there's some fantastic racism in regarding superhumans to be on a different level to regular humans, but they objectively are on a different level. A lot of them are walking weapons essentially. :The SHRA also differs from the Mutant Registration Act in the fact that it mostly tackles the use of superpowers for vigilantism. The main aspect it tried to tackle was public safety. In order to act as a superhero, you must be properly trained to ensure you can use your abilities without harming others, or counteract another's powers with no damage. And I don't see how is that a bad thing at all. It's simply like having a driver's license. :Additionaly, Registration doesn't lead to corruption. Norman Osborn's rise to power is clearly a special case. And if Tony Stark had remained on the reins of the SHRA, what happened with Osborn wouldn't have happened. There are a hundred laws which can end up causing harm if the wrong hands enforce them, but that doesn't mean they're bad. --The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 22:15, December 5, 2016 (UTC) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :Here's my opinion. Don't wanna have a conflict with you on this again ADour, since we both have strong views and will have a hard time convincing one another otherwise. I'll just reply to the prompt. :I agree with you MaxGoji 2.0, I would be opposed to the SHRA as well. Luckily, it is not in effect any longer in the 616 Universe. It still is in the Cinematic World however, in the form of the Sokovia Accords, but I want to wait and see how that plays out. Many things have turned out differently there than in the comics, and it is a slightly different concept than the SHRA. But if it were still in effect in 616, I'd advocate against it. I am aware that Marvel had no official stance on the issue, and in fact introduced it to spark discussion and debate. They did, however, reveal what would go wrong without it, as in the Stamford Incident. They also revealed what would go wrong with it, as in Dark Reign. Although many innocents died in Stamford, I think it was worse for the whole country when the Green Goblin was running the country. :The SHRA was, at its base, unconstitutional in accordance with the Bill of Rights. First of all, the 1st Amendment allows for freedom of speech. That involves wearing whatever clothes you want and doing whatever you want as long as it is not illegal. You cannot pass a law that prohibits someone's activities unless they are a federal agent. In order to do that, you'd have to specify such activities, and in the Marvel Universe that is next to impossible. Sure you can say "Well the Human Torch flies and can catch fire so that's specific", but that only applies to him and a few others. How do you regulate say, Hawkeye, and yes I know he was technically dead during the Civil War but the bottom line is he had no superpowers. Yet he would most likely oppose the act, like he did in the movie. :Secondly, the 4th Amendment allows for a right to privacy. This was probably the most important issue for the super community, especially for some such as Spider-Man. I should not have to delve further into this point. The Constitution grants privacy. The SHRA breaks it. Done. Next. :Thirdly, the 6th Amendment allows for a speedy and public trial, which none of the super-powered persons who broke that law were granted. Their sentences would have been delayed until their deaths, and nobody except authorized personnel would have been able to witness such a trial if there was one. It's not even a matter of national security, so anybody should have been allowed to view the case. :Fourthly, the 8th Amendment does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment. Living in the Negative Zone forever would certainly qualify as both cruel and unusual. :Finally, an additional Amendment outside of the Bill of Rights, the 14th, grants all American citizens equal protection of the laws. Here is where I have to disagree with you directly ADour, super-powered persons are still considered persons, so the Constitution applies to them, meaning everything I have already laid out are valid points. And those are just my constitutional arguments about the Act itself, not about the downsides and consequences. :One of the main downsides was that super-villains could harm your family and loved ones if you registered, as the Kingpin's sniper did to Aunt May. Another was that deep rifts in the community were caused by the Act itself, most of which healed eventually. However, not all did. A super-villain was created because his uncle was killed by a Thor clone. The Act wasn't even forgotten, SpOck referenced it in Superior SM #26, and in fact it is now generally accepted to have been a bad idea, as he cited that he now had the right to his secret identity. One last downside was that it was actually detrimental to society to a degree. Cap wasn't able to fulfill his Make A Wish commitments because he'd have been arrested on the spot. Directly afterwards he went to a battle, fled and hid in his base for the rest of the War, was arrested, assassinated, and by the time he was revived and made Captain America again, the Make A Wish kid had probably died or was no longer interested. :Dear lord were there consequences. Now "consequence" is not necessarily a bad word. Iron Man directing SHIELD was significantly more effective than Maria Hill... until Secret Invasion. This proved that when you govern a super-powered community like a government, it is subject to all the same potential failures. Though infiltration cannot happen in our country's government here on good ol' 1218, Skrulls exist in 616. However, that's what the superheroes are for. But what happens when they're the victims? Ruh-Roh. Norman Osborn took advantage of the situation by ending it and making himself the hero. Then he manipulated America into making all the villains heroes and all the heroes villains. Superheroes were arrested. Stark was Disassembled. The Punisher was even killed for godsake. It's a darn good thing Osborn doesn't know Spidey's identity anymore :In conclusion, I oppose the SHRA. The Mutant Registration Acts were actually proven by the 616 Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, and others in the comics have the same consequences, downsides, and improper guidelines as those or the ones I listed. --Ben 1,000,911 (talk) 23:31, December 5, 2016 (UTC) ::One correction first: The Negative Zone imprisonment wasn't permanent. An Amazing Spider-Man tie-in issue implies that it is, but the main book explicitly mentioned it was temporary. ::How can superheroes really be regarded in the same level as normal citizens? (Not to mention I don't recall any comic stating this as a fact, what you seem to be taking this claim for) They have abilities beyond a regular human. There certainly is a blurry line when taking non-powered heroes into account, but that doesn't exempt actively dangerous members of the superhero community. It's a little bit absurd to judge the legitimity of a law that revolves around certain types of people based mainly on regulations and precedents that don't take them into account in any way possible. It's also worth mentioning that the SHRA mostly specifically targets those who use their abilities to fight crime, which is different than simply targeting people because they have powers. ::Essentially allowing thousands of people to roam free and practise vigilantism with no oversight is extremely irresponsible, specially when the potential damage they could cause can be elevated to the nth degree. I find it silly to outright reject a type of law with groundworks based on safety of people when there are more than enough arguments why it's necessary. You could argue that superheroes have the right to pummel bad guys every day of the week and go drink some coffee afterwards, but why shouldn't they go through some kind of training to ensure they don't let debris fall on an innocent's head or level an entire city for TV ratings? ::The downsides you mentioned aren't even directly related to what the SHRA calls for. Spider-Man's identity was public knowledge because he unmasked himself as as a personal choice and not a legal obligation. To quote Gauntlet, the only people who need to know a registered person's secret identity is "you, Tony Stark, and God." All of the identities of costumed heroes were in sole posession of Tony Stark, and he made sure Norman Osborn wouldn't get his hands on them. Goliath wasn't killed either directly because of the Registration Act, the conflict that led to his death was initiated by Captain America even. One kid not getting their Make A Wish petition is not comparable to say, over 600 people dying because of superheroes with no oversight. The Skrulls would still have completed the infiltration hadn't there been the SHRA, considering they still infiltrated the New Avengers or other groups that had nothing to do with the SHRA and were even villanous organizations (like Hood's Gang or the Hand). And finally, Norman Osborn did ascend to power, but it wasn't a consequence of registration either. --The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 00:55, December 6, 2016 (UTC) :::Allllllrighty I didn't want to get involved in this again, so imma say a couple of things and leave. 1: Of course super-powered persons are persons. Saying they're not is discrimination. Back in the early 1800's, people cited phrenology to claim that slaves weren't the same as people, because they were stronger and "had more power". And they didn't have the 14th Amendment to refute themselves. 2: It doesn't matter if it's irresponsible, or you don't think it's right. You aren't king. The Constitution doesn't allow for it at all. Sorry bud. I'm not saying that I don't agree in principal, but hey communism works in principle too. 3: It was not a personal choice on Spidey's part, Tony Stark basically made him. 4: Then why does Tony blame himself for Goliath's death? 5: The Secret Invasion would have toppled without the SHRA. It would be similar to that in the Avengers Assemble cartoon of the early 2010's, it'd work for a bit then be easily trampled. The 616 version technically lasted 5 years via the sleeper agents. Then they could strike. :::But mostly focus on my first two points, the latter 3 are technicalities. --Ben 1,000,911 (talk) 02:15, December 6, 2016 (UTC) ::::1: I'm not saying they're not people. But they are beyond people. They have special abilities which can perfectly and evidently cause harm if not controlled properly, it's in no way comparable with actual discrimination suffered by black people (and I find it to be in a bit of bad taste to paint them like similar situations). ::::2: The people that go around imparting justice by hand with no kind of oversight and are more than capable of causing a lot of harm aren't kings either and shouldn't do whatever they want. They live as part of a society with rules and norms. I find it bewildering that it could be more acceptable to have them run around doing whatever they want, operating above the laws everybody else has to respect than have them answer to some kind of authority and be properly trained. Constantly directing the argument to an outdated amendment that allows such thing no matter how many downsides it has and how many pros some kind of regulation offers based on clear evidence reminds me a bit on those people that really like the Second Amendment. ::::3: Even if Tony suggested Peter he unmasked himself, it was still his choice in the end. It was a PR movement, not a legal obligation. ::::4: Because Tony Stark is a bit of an Atlas and hates himself for basically every bad thing that happens in his sight. That still doesn't change the fact that a) the SHRA didn't lead directly to Goliath's dead, b) and that Cap sparked the conflict that killed Bill. ::::5: There's no evidence at all that the Skrull invasion would've proceeded differently hadn't the SHRA been established, and I find it to be a filmsy connection. The sleeper agents were inserted years before the SHRA was in its first draft. --The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 03:08, December 6, 2016 (UTC) :::::Yeah so I know I said that I'd stop, but I have to point out that there's no point in arguing with somebody who refuses to accept our Constitution as being valid. It doesn't matter that you find it "bewildering", it's the law. And the only way to change it is amend it again, which isn't gonna ever happen. None of our Amendments are outdated, all 27 of them (except #18) are all perfectly relevant today. And I'm not a huge fan of the Second one, but it's still law and ya gotta accept that. So now we're done here, unless you can somehow prove to me and all of America that the Constitution is wrong here on a wiki. --Ben 1,000,911 (talk) 03:28, December 6, 2016 (UTC) ::::::You really don't seem to properly grasp my point. You're essentially accusing me of repudiating the Constitution as if we're having a discussion about the real world. ::::::My point is that some of amendments can't be applied to a completely different context from the one where they were actually created and enforced. ::::::And on top of that absurd accusation you make flimsy connections to try to prove your point, ignore proper counter-arguments, and unnecessarily heat up a discussion (I mean, "Prove to me and all of America that the Constitution is wrong," really?) Now I see why wouldn't you want to get involved in an argument, you can't seem to be able to have a proper discussion. -The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 04:20, December 6, 2016 (UTC)